New forum rules - discussion

[meg]

The only thing I'm probably guilty of is single emoticon replies. I don't do it often, but I do it, and will continue to when the occasion arises. I've often wondered what purgatory was like, though...
I mean...is :lol: really more annoying than hahahahaha?

[Daevo]

The only thing I'm probably guilty of is single emoticon replies. I don't do it often, but I do it, and will continue to when the occasion arises. I've often wondered what purgatory was like, though...
I mean...is :lol: really more annoying than hahahahaha?
I posted a 2 emoticon reply but thought I'd better not get off to a bad start. It's hard to post emoticons with this new format anyway since half of them have broken links.

Is there any reason the shortcut for the emoticon "I have little respect for your opinion" is "voices" - he might get a persecution complex over that but I'm sure curious will approve :insert non-existent wink smiley here:

[Derek]

The main motivation behind getting rid of single-emoticon replies is so I don't have so many posts in the database, so I can keep old posts for longer.

DN

[Cussy]

I heard CJ Bruton just signed up with NZHoops. What a c*** (that dastardly word that rhymes with ****)

[Da Houndawg #55]

You may embed only 3 quotes within each other.

Oooh... Should Stumps take this personally?

Although he'll actually likely work around it... lazy people attempting to argue with him may gnash their teeth and say "can't be fucked" with editing the quotes now to keep it limited to three within.

[Lemon Custard]

You may embed only 3 quotes within each other.

Oooh... Should Stumps take this personally?



I interpreted that as being three quotes within one another. So someone says something, someone quotes them, someone else responds by quoting that again, etc etc. It says nothing about the number of quotes within the actual post. If that's the case, then Stumps won't have any trouble, seeing as how I don't remember him quoting more than 3 quotes within each other.

[meg]

[quote]You may embed only 3 quotes within each other.

Oooh... Should Stumps take this personally?



I interpreted that as being three quotes within one another. So someone says something, someone quotes them, someone else responds by quoting that again, etc etc. It says nothing about the number of quotes within the actual post. If that's the case, then Stumps won't have any trouble, seeing as how I don't remember him quoting more than 3 quotes within each other.[/quote:zrxqi3fs]

So what happens if you go beyond three? Anyone willing to try it out?

[Cussy]

You may embed only 3 quotes within each other.

Oooh... Should Stumps take this personally?



I interpreted that as being three quotes within one another. So someone says something, someone quotes them, someone else responds by quoting that again, etc etc. It says nothing about the number of quotes within the actual post. If that's the case, then Stumps won't have any trouble, seeing as how I don't remember him quoting more than 3 quotes within each other.

So what happens if you go beyond three? Anyone willing to try it out?

Surely there are ways around it.

[meg]

Of course there are ways around it, but what if I want to be lazy? It just won't let you post.

[Da Houndawg #55]

...lazy people attempting to argue with him may gnash their teeth and say "can't be fucked" with editing the quotes now to keep it limited to three within.

[Stumps]

If you're a lazy person arguing with me, you're pretty much rooted to begin with :P

[morgan01]

:spam:

[Cussy]

Can a new rule be introduced where if you mention potential crowd figures of a team that no longer exists, or if you pretend that a team that no longer exists was a crowd-puller, both live and on tv audiences (despite having been shown both assumptions are wrong), you get a ban for the rest of the season?

[Clips]

I 2nd that.

[CGG]

So you think we need a timeout zone? For causing stupid arguments and whining?

[Julian]

I think they just need to be spanked.

[Clips]

A strong taste of backhand.